>It is thus difficult to avoid the conclusion that IBM's failure >to provide a PC-screening facility is attributable, not to >lapses of imagination or even stupidity, which are both in >some sense forgivable, but to sloth or poor oversight, which are not.
It is not at all difficult to avoid that conclusion. The conclusion you should at least consider is that no one has made a suitable business case to justify implementation of the function (both the concept and the resource expenditure). Does anyone know of a formal need (not just "desire") to impose additional restrictions on who is allowed to issue a particular PC? That is the documented purpose of SVC Screening (and thus would be the documented purpose of "PC Screening" if that were provided). If someone were to ask me to front end every PC in the system, I would start by asking "why". If someone were to ask me to provide an exit for specific PC's I'd still ask why but the specificity makes it more understandable and more likely that it would be accommodated. But neither of these is likely the actual requirement. Just as MIM's requirement is not to get control on ISGENQ's PC but rather on every ENQ, whether SVC-entered or PC-entered (or, if ever implemented branch-entered). And the starting post for this thread did not need to get control on every ENQ SVC, but on some set of circumstances within the dynamic allocation function. I mention these only as examples of how a mis-stated requirement (or a requirement that insists on an implementation) is less likely to be accepted than one that states the need and allows for the system to implement as it sees fit, within the constraints of that need. Peter Relson z/OS Core Technology Design ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
